Archived: United Response - 171 Highlands Road

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, two members of staff, one relative and two people who use the service.

We saw that the home was clean and well maintained with a plan in place to redecorate the communal living areas and kitchen of the home. On the day of our visit we saw that the hedges surrounding the home and the gardens were being maintained.

People were able to personalise their living areas with their own possessions. Staff did not enter these areas without the permission of people living there. People could live independently without support from staff if they chose to. In case of emergencies a master key was available for staff to use.

People had their privacy and dignity respected. One person we spoke to told us, 'I have had a long lie in today and have been watching television.' We saw that staff respected their wishes to remain in bed.

We saw that agreed working practices were clearly documented in people's records to support them in the way they chose. We saw that people had identified and agreed monthly goals with their key workers. Records showed that these goals were achieved and discussed. This showed that people were supported in promoting their independence. We saw that people had their care discussed and agreed with them or their representative.

Observation during the inspection showed staff supported people to make their own choices about what they had for lunch and what activities they took part in. Staff knew exactly how each person communicated which meant people's wishes were understood and respected.

People chose how to occupy themselves in the service. We observed that people were spending time in the communal areas watching television and interacting with each other.

During the inspection we observed staff spent the majority of their time with people who used the service. They frequently checked on them to ensure they were alright when spending time on their own.

During the inspection we were unable to evidence that the provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. There was not any evidence of changes being implemented or actions being taken following requests from people using the service and there was not any evidence of the provider obtaining regular feedback from people using the service, families or professionals.